Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Note.

In termination disputes or illegal dismissal cases, the


employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just and
valid causes; and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the
dismissal was not justied and therefore illegalthe employer is
bound to adduce clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence
to prove that the dismissal is valid and legal. (EDI-Staff-builders
International, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 537
SCRA 409 [2007])

o0o

G.R. No. 180668.May 26, 2009.*

MARIETTA C. AZCUETA, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE


PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Family Code; Marriages; Prefatorily, it bears stressing that it is the


policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.
It bears stressing that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and
strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and
marriage as the foundation of the family. Our family law is based on the
policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which
the state is vitally interested. The State can nd no stronger anchor than on
good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social
and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of
the family members.
Same; Psychological Incapacity; In Santos v. Court of Appeals (240
SCRA 20 [1995]), the Court declared that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.
In Santos v. Court of Appeals (240 SCRA 20 [1995]), the Court declared
that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. It should refer to no less than a
mental, not physical, incapacity that causes a party to be truly

_______________

*FIRST DIVISION.
197

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 197

Azcueta vs. Republic

incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be


assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. The intendment of
the law has been to conne the meaning of psychological incapacity to the
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and signicance to the marriage.
Same; Same; Marriages; In regard to psychological incapacity as a
ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on all
fours with another case.In more recent jurisprudence, we have observed
that notwithstanding the guidelines laid down in Molina, there is a need to
emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of
petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. Each case must be
judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations but according to its own facts. In regard to psychological
incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no
case is on all fours with another case. The trial judge must take pains in
examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as
possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. With
the advent of Te v. Yu-Te (579 SCRA 193 [2009]), the Court encourages a
reexamination of jurisprudential trends on the interpretation of Article 36
although there has been no major deviation or paradigm shift from the
Molina doctrine.
Same; Same; Same; In Marcos v. Marcos (343 SCRA 755 [2000]), it
was held that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse
should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a
condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity.The Solicitor General, in discrediting Dr.
Villegas psychiatric report, highlights the lack of personal examination of
Rodolfo by said doctor and the doctors reliance on petitioners version of
events. In Marcos v. Marcos (343 SCRA 755 [2000]), it was held that there
is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally
examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the
declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What
matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a
nding of psychological incapacity.
Same; Same; One who is unable to support himself, much less a wife;
one who cannot independently make decisions regarding even the most
basic and ordinary matters that spouses face everyday; one who cannot
contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse

198
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Azcueta vs. Republic

is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations


within the meaning of Article 36.Rodolfo is evidently unable to comply
with the essential marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of the
Family Code. As noted by the trial court, as a result of Rodolfos dependent
personality disorder, he cannot make his own decisions and cannot fulll his
responsibilities as a husband. Rodolfo plainly failed to fulll the marital
obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, support under
Article 68. Indeed, one who is unable to support himself, much less a wife;
one who cannot independently make decisions regarding even the most
basic and ordinary matters that spouses face everyday; one who cannot
contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations
within the meaning of Article 36.
Same; Same; With respect to the concept of psychological incapacity,
courts must take into account not only developments in science and
medicine but also changing social and cultural mores, including the
blurring of traditional gender roles.The Court is not unmindful of the
sometimes peculiar predicament it nds itself in those instances when it is
tasked to interpret static statutes formulated in a particular point in time and
apply them to situations and people in a society in ux. With respect to the
concept of psychological incapacity, courts must take into account not only
developments in science and medicine but also changing social and cultural
mores, including the blurring of traditional gender roles. In this day and age,
women have taken on increasingly important roles in the nancial and
material support of their families. This, however, does not change the ideal
that the family should be an autonomous social institution, wherein the
spouses cooperate and are equally responsible for the support and well-
being of the family. In the case at bar, the spouses from the outset failed to
form themselves into a family, a cohesive unit based on mutual love, respect
and support, due to the failure of one to perform the essential duties of
marriage.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of


the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
M.C. Santos Law Ofce for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

199

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 199


Azcueta vs. Republic
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86162 dated August 31, 2007,1 and its
Resolution dated November 20, 2007.2
Petitioner Marietta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993.
Less than two months after their rst meeting, they got married on
July 24, 1993 at St. Anthony of Padua Church, Antipolo City. At the
time of their marriage, petitioner was 23 years old while respondent
was 28. They separated in 1997 after four years of marriage. They
have no children.
On March 2, 2002, petitioner led with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 72, a petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
docketed as Civil Case No. 02-6428.
Meanwhile, respondent failed to appear and le an answer
despite service of summons upon him. Because of this, the trial
court directed the City Prosecutor to conduct an investigation
whether there was collusion between the parties. In a report dated
August 16, 2002, Prosecutor Wilfredo G. Oca found that there was
no collusion between the parties.
On August 21, 2002, the Ofce of the Solicitor General entered
its appearance for the Republic of the Philippines and submitted a
written authority for the City Prosecutor to appear in the case on the
States behalf under the supervision and control of the Solicitor
General.
In her petition and during her testimony, petitioner claimed that
her husband Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage. According to petitioner,
Rodolfo was emotionally immature, irresponsible and

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate


Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal; Rollo, pp. 37-50.
2Id., at p. 36.

200

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

continually failed to adapt himself to married life and perform the


essential responsibilities and duties of a husband.
Petitioner complained that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a
job and instead always asked his mother for nancial assistance.
When they were married it was Rodolfos mother who found them a
room near the Azcueta home and it was also his mother who paid
the monthly rental.
Petitioner also testied that she constantly encouraged her
husband to nd employment. She even bought him a newspaper
every Sunday but Rodolfo told her that he was too old and most jobs
have an age limit and that he had no clothes to wear to job
interviews. To inspire him, petitioner bought him new clothes and a
pair of shoes and even gave him money. Sometime later, her
husband told petitioner that he already found a job and petitioner
was overjoyed. However, some weeks after, petitioner was informed
that her husband had been seen at the house of his parents when he
was supposed to be at work. Petitioner discovered that her husband
didnt actually get a job and the money he gave her (which was
supposedly his salary) came from his mother. When she confronted
him about the matter, Rodolfo allegedly cried like a child and told
her that he pretended to have a job so that petitioner would stop
nagging him about applying for a job. He also told her that his
parents can support their needs. Petitioner claimed that Rodolfo was
so dependent on his mother and that all his decisions and attitudes in
life should be in conformity with those of his mother.
Apart from the foregoing, petitioner complained that every time
Rodolfo would get drunk he became physically violent towards her.
Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory. They only had sex
once a month and petitioner never enjoyed it. When they discussed
this problem, Rodolfo would always say that sex was sacred and it
should not be enjoyed nor abused. He did not even want to have a
child yet because he claimed he was not ready. Additionally, when
petitioner requested that they move to another place and rent a small
room rather than live near his parents, Rodolfo did not agree.
Because of this, she was forced to leave their residence and see if he
will follow her. But he did not.

201

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 201


Azcueta vs. Republic

During the trial of the case, petitioner presented Rodolfos rst


cousin, Florida de Ramos, as a witness. In 1993, Ramos, the niece of
Rodolfos father, was living with Rodolfos family. She corroborated
petitioners testimony that Rodolfo was indeed not gainfully
employed when he married petitioner and he merely relied on the
allowance given by his mother. This witness also conrmed that it
was respondents mother who was paying the rentals for the room
where the couple lived. She also testied that at one time, she saw
respondent going to his mothers house in business attire. She
learned later that Rodolfo told petitioner that he has a job but in truth
he had none. She also stated that respondent was still residing at the
house of his mother and not living together with petitioner.
Petitioner likewise presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist.
Dr. Villegas testied that after examining petitioner for her
psychological evaluation, she found petitioner to be mature,
independent, very responsible, focused and has direction and
ambition in life. She also observed that petitioner works hard for
what she wanted and therefore, she was not psychologically
incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage.
Dr. Villegas added that based on the information gathered from
petitioner, she found that Rodolfo showed that he was
psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties and
responsibilities. Dr. Villegas concluded that he was suffering from
Dependent Personality Disorder associated with severe inadequacy
related to masculine strivings.
She explained that persons suffering from Dependent Personality
Disorder were those whose response to ordinary way of life was
ineffectual and inept, characterized by loss of self-condence,
constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions and
dependency on other people. She added that the root cause of this
psychological problem was a cross-identication with the mother
who was the dominant gure in the family considering that
respondents father was a seaman and always out of the house. She
stated that this problem began during the early stages in his life but
manifested only after the celebration of his marriage. According to
Dr. Villegas, this kind of problem was also severe because he will
not

202

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

be able to make and to carry on the responsibilities expected of a


married person. It was incurable because it started in early
development and therefore deeply ingrained into his personality.
Based on petitioners evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision
dated October 25, 2004, declaring the marriage between petitioner
and Rodolfo as null and void ab initio, thus:

With the preponderant evidence presented by the petitioner, the court


nds that respondent totally failed in his commitments and obligations as a
husband. Respondents emotional immaturity and irresponsibility is grave
and he has no showing of improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual
intercourse with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt
felling of having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between
the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be
satisfactory as expected.
The respondent is suffering from dependent personality disorder and
therefore cannot make his own decision and cannot carry on his
responsibilities as a husband. The marital obligations to live together,
observe mutual love, respect, support was not fullled by the respondent.
Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that
respondent failed to comply with his marital obligations.
Thus the marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared
null and void on the account of respondents severe and incurable
psychological incapacity.
xxxxxxxxx
Wherefore premises considered, the marriage between Marietta Azcueta
and Rodolfo B. Azcuata is hereby declared null and void ab initio pursuant
to Article 36 of the Family Code.
The National Statistics Ofce and the Local Civil Registrar of Antipolo
City are ordered to make proper entries into the records of the parties
pursuant to judgment of the court.
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Public Prosecutor and the
Solicitor General.
SO ORDERED.3

_______________

3CA Records pp. 36-37.

203

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 203


Azcueta vs. Republic

On July 19, 2005, the RTC rendered an Amended Decision4 to


correct the rst name of Rodolfo which was erroneously typewritten
as Gerardo in the caption of the original Decision.
The Solicitor General appealed the RTC Decision objecting that
(a) the psychiatric report of Dr. Villegas was based solely on the
information provided by petitioner and was not based on an
examination of Rodolfo; and (b) there was no showing that the
alleged psychological defects were present at the inception of
marriage or that such defects were grave, permanent and incurable.
Resolving the appeal, the CA reversed the RTC and essentially
ruled that petitioner failed to sufciently prove the psychological
incapacity of Rodolfo or that his alleged psychological disorder
existed prior to the marriage and was grave and incurable. In setting
aside the factual ndings of the RTC, the CA reasoned that:

The evidence on record failed to demonstrate that respondents


alleged irresponsibility and over-dependence on his mother is
symptomatic of psychological incapacity as above explained.
xxxxxxxxx
Also worthy of note is petitioner-appellees failure to prove that
respondents supposed psychological malady existed even before the
marriage. Records however show that the parties were living in
harmony in the rst few years of their marriage and were living on
their own in a rented apartment. That respondent often times asks his
mother for nancial support may be brought about by his feeling of
embarrassment that he cannot contribute at all to the family coffers,
considering that it was his wife who is working for the family. Petitioner-
appellee likewise stated that respondent does not like to have a child on
the pretense that respondent is not yet ready to have one. However this
is not at all a manifestation of irresponsibility. On the contrary,
respondent has shown that he has a full grasp of reality and completely
understands the implication of having a child especially that he is
unemployed. The only problem besetting the union is respondents
alleged irresponsibility and unwillingness to leave her (sic) mother,
which was not proven in this case to be psychological-rooted.

_______________

4Id., at p. 41.

204

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

The behavior displayed by respondent was caused only by his youth


and emotional immaturity which by themselves, do not constitute
psychological incapacity (Deldel vs. Court of Appeals, 421 SCRA 461, 466
[2004]). At all events, petitioner-appellee has utterly failed, both in her
allegations in the complaint and in her evidence, to make out a case of
psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, let alone at the time of
solemnization of the contract, so immaturity and irresponsibility, invoked by
her, cannot be equated with psychological incapacity (Pesca vs. Pesca, 356
SCRA 588, 594 [2001]). As held by the Supreme Court:
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a difculty,
refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations, it
is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due
to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration
of the marriage. (Navarro, Jr. vs. Cecilio-Navarro, G.R. No. 162049,
April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 121, 129).
xxxxxxxxx
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the appealed decision dated
July 19, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch
72 in Civil Case No. 02-6428 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
marriage berween petitioner-appellee Marietta C. Azcueta and respondent
Rodolfo B. Azcueta remains VALID.5 (emphasis ours)
The basic issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or
not the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a
nding that Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to comply with
his essential marital obligations.
The Ofce of the Solicitor General, in its Comment, submits that
the appellate court correctly ruled that the totality of evidence
presented by petitioner failed to prove her spouses psychological
incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code and settled
jurisprudence.
We grant the petition.
Prefatorily, it bears stressing that it is the policy of our
Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the
fam-

_______________

5Rollo, pp. 45-49.

205

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 205


Azcueta vs. Republic

ily.6 Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a
mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is vitally
interested. The State can nd no stronger anchor than on good, solid
and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and
moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone
of the family members.7
Thus, the Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines v. Court
of Appeals and Molina8 stringent guidelines in the interpretation and
application of Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit:

(1)The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage


belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our
Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it as the
foundation of the nation. It decrees marriage as legally inviolable,
thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
family and marriage are to be protected by the state.
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the
family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
(2)The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a)
medically or clinically identied, (b) alleged in the complaint,
_______________

6Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides:


SEC. 12.The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. xxx
Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV of the 1987 Constitution state:
SECTION 1.The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
SEC.2.Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State.
7Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 725, 740; Tuason v.
Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 169, 180-181; 256 SCRA 158, 169 (1996).
8G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.

206

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

(c) sufciently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the


decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be
psychological not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms
may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties,
or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the
person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although
no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis
(Salita v. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100, 108 [1994]), nevertheless such root
cause must be identied as a psychological illness and its incapacitating
nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualied
psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
(3)The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was
existing when the parties exchanged their I dos. The manifestation of
the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
(4)Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even
relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against
everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant
to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not
related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children
and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically
capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential
obligation of marriage.
(5)Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability
of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difculty,
much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening
disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from
really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to
marriage.

207

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 207


Azcueta vs. Republic

(6)The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by


Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and
wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must
also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of
the decision.
(7)Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
xxx.9 (Emphasis supplied)

In Santos v. Court of Appeals,10 the Court declared that


psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.11 It should refer to no
less than a mental, not physical, incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.12
The intendment of the law has been to conne the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability
to give meaning and signicance to the marriage.13
However, in more recent jurisprudence, we have observed that
notwithstanding the guidelines laid down in Molina, there is a need
to emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the
disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36.14
Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In
regard to psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of
marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on all fours with another
case. The trial judge must take pains in examining the

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 209-213.


10310 Phil. 21; 240 SCRA 20 (1995).
11Id., at p. 39; p. 33.
12Id., at p. 40; p. 34.
13Id.
14Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 353, 370.

208

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible,


avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.15 With
the advent of Te v. Yu-Te,16 the Court encourages a reexamination of
jurisprudential trends on the interpretation of Article 36 although
there has been no major deviation or paradigm shift from the Molina
doctrine.
After a thorough review of the records of the case, we nd that
there was sufcient compliance with Molina to warrant the
annulment of the parties marriage under Article 36.
First, petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove the
psychological incapacity of her husband.
The Solicitor General, in discrediting Dr. Villegas psychiatric
report, highlights the lack of personal examination of Rodolfo by
said doctor and the doctors reliance on petitioners version of
events. In Marcos v. Marcos,17 it was held that there is no
requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be
personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition
sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of
evidence presented is adequate to sustain a nding of psychological
incapacity.
It should be noted that, apart from her interview with the
psychologist, petitioner testied in court on the facts upon which the
psychiatric report was based. When a witness testied under oath
before the lower court and was cross-examined, she thereby
presented evidence in the form of testimony.18 Signicantly,
petitioners narration of facts was corroborated in material points by
the testimony of a close relative of Rodolfo. Dr. Villegas likewise
testied in court to elaborate on her report and fully explain the

_______________

15Republic of the Philippines v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001, 351
SCRA 425, 431.
16G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 193.
17397 Phil. 840; 343 SCRA 755 (2000).
18Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997, 266 SCRA 324,
330.
209

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 209


Azcueta vs. Republic

link between the manifestations of Rodolfos psychological


incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. It is a settled
principle of civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court
regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect
from the appellate courts because the trial court had an opportunity
to observe the demeanor of witnesses while giving testimony which
may indicate their candor or lack thereof.19 Since the trial court itself
accepted the veracity of petitioners factual premises, there is no
cause to dispute the conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn
therefrom by petitioners expert witness.20
Second, the root cause of Rodolfos psychological incapacity has
been medically or clinically identied, alleged in the petition,
sufciently proven by expert testimony, and clearly explained in the
trial courts decision.
The petition alleged that from the beginning of their marriage,
Rodolfo was not gainfully employed and, despite pleas from
petitioner, he could not be persuaded to even attempt to nd
employment; that from the choice of the family abode to the
couples daily sustenance, Rodolfo relied on his mother; and that the
couples inadequate sexual relations and Rodolfos refusal to have a
child stemmed from a psychological condition linked to his
relationship to his mother.
These manifestations of incapacity to comply or assume his
marital obligations were linked to medical or clinical causes by an
expert witness with more than forty years experience from the eld
of psychology in general and psychological incapacity, in particular.
In a portion of her psychiatric evaluation, Dr. Villegas elucidated the
psychodynamics of the case of petitioner and Rodolfo, thus:

Marietta is the eldest of 5 siblings, whose parents has very limited


education. Being the eldest, she is expected to be the role model of younger
siblings. In so doing, she has been restricted and physically punished, in

_______________

19Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 105, 126; 250 SCRA 523, 542
(1995), citing Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 45125, April 22, 1991, 196 SCRA 107,
110.
20Supra note 14.

210

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

order to tow the line. But on the other hand, she developed growing
resentments towards her father and promised herself that with the rst
opportunity, shell get out of the family. When Rodolfo came along, they
were married 1 months after they met, without really knowing anything
about him. Her obsession to leave her family was her primary reason at that
time and she did not exercise good judgment in her decision making in
marriage. During their 4 years marital relationship, she came to realize that
Rodolfo cannot be responsible in his duties and responsibilities, in terms of
loving, caring, protection, nancial support and sex.
On the other hand, Rodolfo is the 3rd among 5 boys. The father, who
was perceived to be weak, and his two elder brothers were all working as
seaman. Rodolfo who was always available to his mothers needs, became
an easy prey, easily engulfed into her system. The relationship became
symbiotic, that led to a prolonged and abnormal dependence to his mother.
The mother, being the stronger and dominant parent, is a convenient role
model, but the reversal of roles became confusing that led to ambivalence of
his identity and grave dependency. Apparently, all the boys were hooked up
to his complexities, producing so much doubts in their capabilities in a
heterosexual setting. Specically, Rodolfo tried, but failed. His inhibitions
in a sexual relationship, is referable to an unconscious guilt feelings of
defying the mothers love. At this point, he has difculty in delineating
between the wife and the mother, so that his continuous relationship with his
wife produces considerable anxiety, which he is unable to handle, and
crippled him psychologically.
Based on the above clinical data, family background and outcome of
their marriage, it is the opinion of the examiner, that Mrs. Marietta Cruz-
Azcueta is mature, independent and responsible and is psychologically
capacitated to perform the duties and obligations of marriage. Due to her
numerous personal problems she has difculty in handling her considerable
anxiety, at present. There are strong clinical evidences that Mr. Rodolfo
Azcueta is suffering from a Dependent Personality Disorder associated with
severe inadequacy that renders him psychologically incapacitated to
perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage.
The root cause of the above clinical condition is due to a strong and
prolonged dependence with a parent of the opposite sex, to a period when it
becomes no longer appropriate. This situation crippled his psychological
functioning related to sex, self condence, independence, responsibility and
maturity. It existed prior to marriage, but became manifest only after the
celebration due to marital stresses and demands. It is considered as
permanent and incurable in nature, because it started early in his life and

211

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 211


Azcueta vs. Republic
therefore became so deeply ingrained into his personality structure. It is
severe or grave in degree, because it hampered and interfered with his
normal functioning related to heterosexual adjustment.21

These ndings were reiterated and further explained by Dr.


Villegas during her testimony, the relevant portion of which we
quote below:
xxxxxxxxx
Q:Now, Madame Witness, after examining the petitioner, what was your
psychological evaluation?
A:Ive found the petitioner in this case, Mrs. Marietta Azcueta as matured,
independent, very responsible, focused, she has direction and ambition in life
and she work hard for what she wanted, maam, and therefore, I concluded
that she is psychologically capacitated to perform the duties and
responsibilities of the marriage, maam.
Q:How about the respondent, Madame Witness, what was your psychological
evaluation with regards to the respondent?
A:Based on my interview, Ive found out that the husband Mr. Rodolfo Azcueta
is psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of
marriage suffering from a psychiatric classication as Dependent Personality
Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings,
maam.
Q:In laymans language, Madame Witness, can you please explain to us what do
you mean by Dependent Personality Disorder?
A:Dependent Personality Disorder are (sic) those persons in which their
response to ordinary way of life are ineffectual and inept characterized by loss
of self condence, always in doubt with himself and inability to make his own
decision, quite dependent on other people, and in this case, on his mother,
maam.
Q:And do you consider this, Madame Witness, as a psychological problem of
respondent, Rodolfo Azcueta?
A:Very much, maam.

_______________

21Rollo, pp. 63-64.

212

212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

Q:Why?
A:Because it will always interfered, hampered and disrupt his duties and
responsibilities as a husband and as a father, maam.
Q:And can you please tell us, Madame Witness, what is the root cause of this
psychological problem?
A:The root cause of this psychological problem is a cross identication with the
mother who is the dominant gure in the family, the mother has the last say
and the authority in the family while the father was a seaman and always out
of the house, and if present is very shy, quiet and he himself has been very
submissive and passive to the authority of the wife, maam.
Q:And can you please tell us, Madame Witness, under what circumstance this
kind of psychological problem manifested?
A:This manifested starting his personality development and therefore, during his
early stages in life, maam.
Q:So, you mean to say, Madame Witness, this kind of problem existed to
Rodolfo Azcueta, the respondent in this case, before the celebration of the
marriage?
A:Yes, maam.
Q:And it became manifested only after the celebration of the marriage?
A:Yes, maam.
Q:And can you please tell us the reason why it became manifested with the
that the manifestation came too late?
A:The manifestation came too late because the history of Mr. Rodolfo Azcueta
was very mild, no stresses, no demand on his life, at 24 years old despite the
fact that he already nished college degree of Computer Science, there is no
demand on himself at least to establish his own, and the mother always would
make the decision for him, maam.
Q:Okay, Madame Witness, is this kind of psychological problem severe?
A:Yes maam.
Q:Why do you consider this psychological problem severe, Madame Witness?
A:Because he will not be able to make and to carry on the responsibility that is
expected of a married person, maam.

213

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 213


Azcueta vs. Republic

Q:Is it incurable, Madame Witness?


A:It is incurable because it started early in development and therefore it became
so deeply ingrained into his personality, and therefore, it cannot be changed
nor cured at this stage, maam.
Q:So, you mean to say, Madame Witness, that it is Permanent?
A:It is permanent in nature, sir.
Q:And last question as an expert witness, what is the effect of the psychological
problem as far as the marriage relationship of Rodolfo Azcueta is concerned?
A:The effect of this will really be a turbulent marriage relationship because
standard expectation is, the husband has to work, to feed, to protect, to love,
and of course, to function on (sic) the sexual duties of a husband to the wife,
but in this case, early in their marriage, they had only according to the wife,
experienced once sexual relationship every month and this is due to the fact
that because husband was so closely attached to the mother, it is a result of the
unconscious guilt feeling of the husband in defying the mothers love when
they will be having heterosexual relationship and therefore, at that point, he
will not be able to distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore,
sex relationship will not be satisfactory according to expectation, maam.22

In Te v. Yu-Te, we held that [b]y the very nature of Article 36,
courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision-
making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive
evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental
temperaments of the parties.23
Based on the totality of the evidence, the trial court clearly
explained the basis for its decision, which we reproduce here for
emphasis:

With the preponderant evidence presented by the petitioner, the court


nds that respondent totally failed in his commitments and obligations as a
husband. Respondents emotional immaturity and irresponsibil-

_______________

22TSN dated February 26, 2004, at pp. 13-20.


23Supra note 16.

214

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

ity is grave and he has no showing of improvement. He failed likewise to


have sexual intercourse with the wife because it is a result of the
unconscious guilt felling of having sexual relationship since he could not
distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship
will not be satisfactory as expected.
The respondent is suffering from dependent personality disorder and
therefore cannot make his own decision and cannot carry on his
responsibilities as a husband. The marital obligations to live together,
observe mutual love, respect, support was not fullled by the respondent.
Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that
respondent failed to comply with his marital obligations.
Thus the marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared
null and void on the account of respondents severe and incurable
psychological incapacity.

Third, Rodolfos psychological incapacity was established to


have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of
marriage. Contrary to the CAs nding that the parties lived
harmoniously and independently in the rst few years of marriage,
witnesses were united in testifying that from inception of the
marriage, Rodolfos irresponsibility, overdependence on his mother
and abnormal sexual reticence were already evident. To be sure,
these manifestations of Rodolfos dependent personality disorder
must have existed even prior to the marriage being rooted in his
early development and a by product of his upbringing and family
life.
Fourth, Rodolfos psychological incapacity has been shown to be
sufciently grave, so as to render him unable to assume the essential
obligations of marriage.
The Court is wary of the CAs bases for overturning factual
ndings of the trial court on this point. The CAs reasoning that
Rodolfos requests for nancial assistance from his mother might
have been due to his embarrassment for failing to contribute to the
family coffers and that his motive for not wanting a child was his
responsible realization that he should not have a child since he is
unemployed are all purely speculative. There is no evidence on
record to support these views. Again, we must point out that
appellate courts should not substitute their discretion with that of the

215

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 215


Azcueta vs. Republic

trial court or the expert witnesses, save only in instance where the
ndings of the trial court or the experts are contradicted by evidence.
We likewise cannot agree with the CA that Rodolfos
irresponsibility and overdependence on his mother can be attributed
to his immaturity or youth. We cannot overlook the fact that at the
time of his marriage to petitioner, he was nearly 29 years old or the
fact that the expert testimony has identied a grave clinical or
medical cause for his abnormal behavior.
In Te, the Court has had the occasion to expound on the nature of
a dependent personality disorder and how one aficted with such a
disorder would be incapacitated from complying with marital
obligations, to wit:

Indeed, petitioner, who is aficted with dependent personality disorder,


cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing
love, respect and delity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to
make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows others to make
most of his important decisions (such as where to live), tends to agree with
people even when he believes they are wrong, has difculty doing things on
his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval
from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often
preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. As clearly shown in this case,
petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him.
He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person,
has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in
life.24
Of course, this is not to say that anyone diagnosed with
dependent personality disorder is automatically deemed
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the obligations of
marriage. We realize that psychology is by no means an exact
science and the medical cases of patients, even though suffering
from the same disorder, may be different in their symptoms or
manifestations and in the degree of severity. It is the duty of the
court in its evaluation of the facts, as guided by expert opinion, to
carefully scrutinize the type

_______________

24Id.

216

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Azcueta vs. Republic

of disorder and the gravity of the same before declaring the nullity
of a marriage under Article 36.
Fifth, Rodolfo is evidently unable to comply with the essential
marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of the Family
Code.25 As noted by the trial court, as a result of Rodolfos
dependent personality disorder, he cannot make his own decisions
and cannot fulll his responsibilities as a husband. Rodolfo plainly
failed to fulll the marital obligations to live together, observe
mutual love, respect, support under Article 68. Indeed, one who is
unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who cannot
independently make decisions regarding even the most basic and
ordinary matters that spouses face everyday; one who cannot
contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his
spouse is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital
obligations within the meaning of Article 36.
Sixth, the incurability of Rodolfos condition which has been
deeply ingrained in his system since his early years was supported
by evidence and duly explained by the expert witness.

_______________

25ART. 68.The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and delity, and render mutual help and support.
ART.69.The husband and wife shall x the family domicile. In case of
disagreement, the court shall decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should
live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption.
However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the
solidarity of the family.
ART. 70.The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The
expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the
community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their
separate properties. In case [of] insufciency or absence of said income or fruits, such
obligations shall be satised from their separate properties.
ART. 71.The management of the household shall be the right and duty of both
spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the
provisions of Article 70.

217

VOL. 588, MAY 26, 2009 217


Azcueta vs. Republic

At this point, the Court is not unmindful of the sometimes


peculiar predicament it nds itself in those instances when it is
tasked to interpret static statutes formulated in a particular point in
time and apply them to situations and people in a society in ux.
With respect to the concept of psychological incapacity, courts must
take into account not only developments in science and medicine but
also changing social and cultural mores, including the blurring of
traditional gender roles. In this day and age, women have taken on
increasingly important roles in the nancial and material support of
their families. This, however, does not change the ideal that the
family should be an autonomous social institution, wherein the
spouses cooperate and are equally responsible for the support and
well-being of the family. In the case at bar, the spouses from the
outset failed to form themselves into a family, a cohesive unit based
on mutual love, respect and support, due to the failure of one to
perform the essential duties of marriage.
This brings to mind the following pronouncement in Te:

In dissolving marital bonds on account of either partys psychological


incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is
actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a
person aficted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or
assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred
bond. It may be stressed that the iniction of physical violence,
constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction, and
psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality
anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak
of in the rst place, as the same is void from the very beginning. To
indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will
simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.26 (emphasis
ours)

In all, we agree with the trial court that the declaration of nullity
of the parties marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code is
proper under the premises.

_______________

26Supra note 16.

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen